NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe the universe is indifferent to human endeavour, has no intrinsic purpose, and offers no absolute morality.

That the individual is unique, and his existence, not the reasons for, but the consequences thereof, is the primary question.

I believe the existence of the individual precedes his essence, that a human being is only the sum of his experiences to date. Coming into being in an indifferent universe, he has the freedom to make his own decisions and the responsibility to accept the consequences, with no destiny to act as a guide or scapegoat.

Faced with this solitude, we deceive ourselves with false purpose, to mask the void opened up by our freedom to choose. Yet if the ultimate futility of our existence is recognised, I believe we can face our struggles with less anxiety. Our ultimate challenge is not a futile quest for meaning where there can be none, but to continue regardless, realising that every day we are redefined by the decisions we make and seeking to make the best choices we can, within the boundaries imposed by our context.

oh i thought everyone was an existentialist these days. they just dont know it.

On days when I give my meaninglessness "context" and "boundaries," then yes, I am an existentialist... well, not really... I'm more of an existential nihilist.

On days when my chronic? depression gets the better of me, or I am in a heated or passionate debate, I take it to the edge... and I'm a nihilist.

Basically, it appears to me that existential nihilism is the automatic ends of atheism/rationalism. But that's just me.

Oh... and when I'm high, or my testosterone is out of wack... I'm an agnostic.

I lean that way.

But I'm neither atheist nor religious.

*cough* agnostic wimp*cough*

On days when I give my meaninglessness "context" and "boundaries," then yes, I am an existentialist... well, not really... I'm more of an existential nihilist.

On days when my chronic? depression gets the better of me, or I am in a heated or passionate debate, I take it to the edge... and I'm a nihilist.

Basically, it appears to me that existential nihilism is the automatic ends of atheism/rationalism. But that's just me.

Oh... and when I'm high, or my testosterone is out of wack... I'm an agnostic.
That makes two of us.

*cough* agnostic wimp*cough*
Hey, it takes more courage to admit that you don't know one way or the other than to pretend to know one way or the other and live your life in denial.

Basically, it appears to me that existential nihilism is the automatic ends of atheism/rationalism. But that's just me.
Nihilism is not the logical conclusion of existentialism. It is possible to acknowledge the lack of purpose to our existence and yet keep living. Nihilists surrender, allow the universe's indifference to defeat them, existentialists continue their struggles regardless.

Hey, it takes more courage to admit that you don't know one way or the other than to pretend to know one way or the other and live your life in denial.

I do. I do... I'm just giving you a hard time.
I mean, when we call ourselves "atheists", it's implied that we're not 100% sure, or else that would just be another silly dogma. We just say it to differentiate ourselves from the ones who aren't more than 80% sure, as well as the Christians that don't like offending other people or aren't too sure of their own beliefs.

I believe the universe is indifferent to human endeavour, has no intrinsic purpose, and offers no absolute morality.

That the individual is unique, and his existence, not the reasons for, but the consequences thereof, is the primary question.

I believe the existence of the individual precedes his essence, that a human being is only the sum of his experiences to date. Coming into being in an indifferent universe, he has the freedom to make his own decisions and the responsibility to accept the consequences, with no destiny to act as a guide or scapegoat.

Faced with this solitude, we deceive ourselves with false purpose, to mask the void opened up by our freedom to choose. Yet if the ultimate futility of our existence is recognised, I believe we can face our struggles with less anxiety. Our ultimate challenge is not a futile quest for meaning where there can be none, but to continue regardless, realising that every day we are redefined by the decisions we make and seeking to make the best choices we can, within the boundaries imposed by our context.
Ah, existentialism, the philosophy of dispair. If I believed that illogical nonsense, I would have killed myself long ago!

Ah, existentialism, the philosophy of dispair. If I believed that illogical nonsense, I would have killed myself long ago!
Then you would have been a nihilist. :p

There is a difference. Existentialists accept, and crucially, move on.

EDIT: And although the philosophy was born of despair, subscribing to it need not lead to it, nor is it necessarily a symptom of it.

Then you would have been a nihilist. :p

There is a difference. Existentialists accept, and crucially, move on.
Toward what? For what reason?

Ah, existentialism, the philosophy of dispair. If I believed that illogical nonsense, I would have killed myself long ago!
Uh... did you either read the description of existentialism at the beginning of the thread or know anything at all about the philosophy?

If not, then kindly learn something and then get back to us. If so, get better glasses.

I do. I do... I'm just giving you a hard time.
I mean, when we call ourselves "atheists", it's implied that we're not 100% sure, or else that would just be another silly dogma. We just say it to differentiate ourselves from the ones who aren't more than 80% sure, as well as the Christians that don't like offending other people or aren't too sure of their own beliefs.
I dont' believe it possible to know either way. That's all.

Toward what? For what reason?
You need to be given a reason to live?

Toward what? For what reason?
Towards whatever goals one creates for oneself. For the simple purpose of living, because continuing one's life in the face of cosmic indifference is a sort of defiance, a triumph of the human spirit. Religion, I consider to be a false courage.

Uh... did you either read the description of existentialism at the beginning of the thread or know anything at all about the philosophy?

If not, then kindly learn something and then get back to us. If so, get better glasses.
Very phunny, oh evil one. I read it. It's incomplete, but not bad for a "thumbnail" description. Are you trying to say that it's not a philosophy of dispair?

Nihilism is not the logical conclusion of existentialism. It is possible to acknowledge the lack of purpose to our existence and yet keep living. Nihilists surrender, allow the universe's indifference to defeat them, existentialists continue their struggles regardless.

Existentialists delude themselves to thinking that what they do matters.
They forget about the whole implosion/explosion of the universe thing.

And no, we don't surrender. The ones that surrender are dead. We choose to live our lives in excrutiating pain in torment. We also like to kvetch about it, and sneer egotistically at every other living person who thinks their lives are tough.

I've seen nirvana. And it is death. It is hell.

Are you an Existentialist?

What if I were? What could it possibly matter? What does anything matter?

Towards whatever goals one creates for oneself. For the simple purpose of living, because continuing one's life in the face of cosmic indifference is a sort of defiance, a triumph of the human spirit. Religion, I consider to be a false courage.
As do I consider it to be for some. For others, it's a shield against a rather harsh reality. For some few, it's the basis of their life.

If you've read any of my posts at all, you know that I'm definitely not religiously oriented, although I do have a set of beliefs based on science and have extended those as far as I suspect might be appropriate.

Part of what science has been able to show us thus far, is that life will arise where and when conditions are favorable for it to arise. It has also shown us that we belong here just as much as do the stars, the galaxies and the rest of the universe. We are parts of an inseperable whole.

Very phunny, oh evil one. I read it. It's incomplete, but not bad for a "thumbnail" description. Are you trying to say that it's not a philosophy of dispair?
Yes. I find it quite hopeful.

Also, how am I evil?

Ah, existentialism, the philosophy of dispair. If I believed that illogical nonsense, I would have killed myself long ago!

Yes. Thank the gods I've deluded myself with Christianity, and indoctrined it into my children too, so they won't have to think! I don't want them to read that nasty Sartre or Camus, or worse still, Nietzsche or Dostoyevsky!

Don't insult that which you cannot comprehend.

Existentialists delude themselves to thinking that what they do matters.
I disagree. On the grand scale of things, humanity is of no great importance, nothing would notice were we to disappear. But on the small scale, that of our day-to-day lives, what we do obviously does matter. But only to ourselves. There just isn't a remote observer to judge us, only ourselves.

Existentialists delude themselves to thinking that what they do matters.
They forget about the whole implosion/explosion of the universe thing.

And no, we don't surrender. The ones that surrender are dead. We choose to live our lives in excrutiating pain in torment. We also like to kvetch about it, and sneer egotistically at every other living person who thinks their lives are tough.

I've seen nirvana. And it is death. It is hell.
And I have seen the universe. And it is life. It is beautiful. It is magnificent. And I am as much a part of all of that as anything else.

As I said, and to which you gave credence, existentialism is a philosophy of dispair.

Yes. Thank the gods I've deluded myself with Christianity, and indoctrined it into my children too, so they won't have to think! I don't want them to read that nasty Sartre or Camus, or worse still, Nietzsche or Dostoyevsky!

Don't insult that which you cannot comprehend.
And do you not presume to insult me with your lack of knowledge about who and what I am.

Yes. I find it quite hopeful.

Also, how am I evil?
LOL! You're not. Actually, I've come to like you on here. It was another weak attempt at a joke. :)

And I have seen the universe. And it is life. It is beautiful. It is magnificent. And I am as much a part of all of that as anything else.

As I said, and to which you gave credence, existentialism is a philosophy of dispair.
Sapeia is a nihlist. Did you even read what you responded to... the whole bit about existentialists deluding themselves with purpose.

And really, no, we are insignificant on the cosmic scale, even if we find a way off this rock, we're not going to get out of this galaxy and thus won't really have much of an impact on the rest of the universe.

I believe the universe is indifferent to human endeavour, has no intrinsic purpose, and offers no absolute morality.

That the individual is unique, and his existence, not the reasons for, but the consequences thereof, is the primary question.

I believe the existence of the individual precedes his essence, that a human being is only the sum of his experiences to date. Coming into being in an indifferent universe, he has the freedom to make his own decisions and the responsibility to accept the consequences, with no destiny to act as a guide or scapegoat.

Faced with this solitude, we deceive ourselves with false purpose, to mask the void opened up by our freedom to choose. Yet if the ultimate futility of our existence is recognised, I believe we can face our struggles with less anxiety. Our ultimate challenge is not a futile quest for meaning where there can be none, but to continue regardless, realising that every day we are redefined by the decisions we make and seeking to make the best choices we can, within the boundaries imposed by our context.

Doesn't all this require that you make the rather large assumption that people actually have free will?

And I have seen the universe. And it is life. It is beautiful. It is magnificent. And I am as much a part of all of that as anything else.

As I said, and to which you gave credence, existentialism is a philosophy of dispair.
um
if it is the philosophy of despair, shouldnt we who identify ourselves as existentialist be IN despair? do you know something about us that we dont know?

LOL! You're not. Actually, I've come to like you on here. It was another weak attempt at a joke. :)
umm... ok...

i say if there is a god it is by all logec that is is the universe or multeverse.but i personaly am a nihilist all the time in 4 of the five defnesions. and that is if you need a god at all. :D

I disagree. On the grand scale of things, humanity is of no great importance, nothing would notice were we to disappear. But on the small scale, that of our day-to-day lives, what we do obviously does matter. But only to ourselves. There just isn't a remote observer to judge us, only ourselves.
Why is it important whether anything would notice if we were to disappear? Is not simply having lived, and been a part of all that is, sufficient? The universe itself will "judge" us if we neglect to heed its lessons.

I disagree. On the grand scale of things, humanity is of no great importance, nothing would notice were we to disappear. But on the small scale, that of our day-to-day lives, what we do obviously does matter. But only to ourselves. There just isn't a remote observer to judge us, only ourselves.

That's fine. Classical existentialism also holds true that your deeds carry on after you die, they represent you, though I'm sure the whole destruction of the multiverse sort of messes that up.

In any event, nihilist is what points out that your day-to-day lives are just such -- ephemeral, and your enjoyment in them is pointless. Existentialism glosses over that, and tries to forget that. Which I'll admit, I do on occasion as well.

Doesn't all this require that you make the rather large assumption that people actually have free will?

Another fine point. Didn't catch the faulty logic meself.

Sapeia is a nihlist. Did you even read what you responded to... the whole bit about existentialists deluding themselves with purpose.

And really, no, we are insignificant on the cosmic scale, even if we find a way off this rock, we're not going to get out of this galaxy and thus won't really have much of an impact on the rest of the universe.
The line between nihilism and existentialism is a very, very fine one.

Why should we care wheather we are "insignificant" or not? Once again, the despair which logically stems from an unacceptable philosophy rears its ugly head.

The line between nihilism and existentialism is a very, very fine one.

Why should we care wheather we are "insignificant" or not? Once again, the despair which logically stems from an unacceptable philosophy rears its ugly head.
How is realizing that you're pretty insignificant a cause for despair? I may be insignificant on a universal scale, but I matter to those around me.

And there is a huge difference between nihlism and existentialism, as demonstrated by the debate that is now going on between the nihlist and the existentialists right now.

How is realizing that you're pretty insignificant a cause for despair? I may be insignificant on a universal scale, but I matter to those around me.

And there is a huge difference between nihlism and existentialism, as demonstrated by the debate that is now going on between the nihlist and the existentialists right now.
Viewing this "debate" as a philosophical "outsider," I find myself wondering why either a nihilist or an existentialist would consider debating the finer points of the two philosophies productive. I mean, why bother? Everything is ultimately pointless, right? :)

im thinking that eutrusca doesnt know that he IS an existentialist. what of what was actually posted by TG in the original post has he disagreed with?

Viewing this "debate" as a philosophical "outsider," I find myself wondering why either a nihilist or an existentialist would consider debating the finer points of the two philosophies productive. I mean, why bother? Everything is ultimately pointless, right? :)

It's apparent you can't even begin to fathom our philosophies, so what right do you have to question them? This is why I don't go in and debate you in "Munitions and Arms" threads, Etrusca. 'Cause when it comes to philosophy, you're clueless.

...going on between the nihlist and the existentialists right now.

Heh.
I'm only a nihilist on my bad days. I'm basically you're garden variety existential nihilist, just like you. I'm only trying to get you to admit that you're deluding yourself about the final obstacle to the edge of the abyss.

um
if it is the philosophy of despair, shouldnt we who identify ourselves as existentialist be IN despair? do you know something about us that we dont know?
That would be the logical end result of either nihilism or existentialism, yes. But humans are notorious for ignoring logic when it clashes with what they want or how they feel. :)

It's apparent you can't even begin to fathom our philosophies, so what right do you have to question them. This is why I don't go in and debate you in "Munitions and Arms" threads, Etrusca. 'Cause when it comes to philosophy, you're clueless.
Once again with the insults. Do you actually use logic once in awhile, or is ad hominum your default?

That would be the logical end result of either nihilism or existentialism, yes. But humans are notorious for ignoring logic when it clashes with what they want or how they feel. :)
no it wouldnt be
the logical end result of existentialism is a richer life because we define it for ourselves by our own actions. we dont rely on outside definitions of the meaning of life that may or may not reflect our own selves.

no it wouldnt be
the logical end result of existentialism is a richer life because we define it for ourselves by our own actions. we dont rely on outside definitions of the meaning of life that may or may not reflect our own selves.
Is this statement accurate?

"The existentialists … mock the notion of a complete and fully satisfying life. The life of every man, whether he explicitly recognizes it or not, is marked by irreparable losses. Man cannot help aspiring toward the goods of this world, nor can he help aspiring toward the serene detachment from the things of this world which the traditional philosopher sought; but it is not within his power to achieve either of these ambitions, or having achieved them to find therein the satisfaction he had anticipated."

Doesn't all this require that you make the rather large assumption that people actually have free will?
For all our sakes, let's not go there. :p

Why is it important whether anything would notice if we were to disappear? Is not simply having lived, and been a part of all that is, sufficient? The universe itself will "judge" us if we neglect to heed its lessons.
Yes, having lived is indeed sufficient. The not being missed part is only a device used here for the purpose of illustrating that our existence is not really required by anything. We matter to each other, but to nothing outside of our world.

Classical existentialism also holds true that your deeds carry on after you die, they represent you, though I'm sure the whole destruction of the multiverse sort of messes that up.
My view is that the sum of our actions only matters so long as there are those who were involved. I see time as gradually diminishing the importance of our actions. We are not greatly affected by the minutae of the lives of people living thousands of years ago, only by the greater forces of history of which they were a part. Similarly, while your day-to-day actions today may have importance to those around you, thousands of years hence, only the aggregate thrust of our civilisation will still have a visible influence.

An inexact analogy I can give is a large number of decaying exponential functions with different time constants, created every time we make a decision, and the effects of some persist longer than others. Where the mathematical bit breaks down is that summing lots of short-lived decaying exponentials simply gives another, but if for the sake of illustration we can imagine them giving rise to a long-lived one...that's our relationship with the forces of history, as I picture it. So your actions are lost in time, they do not represent you forever.

In any event, nihilist is what points out that your day-to-day lives are just such -- ephemeral, and your enjoyment in them is pointless. Existentialism glosses over that, and tries to forget that.
Enjoyment of moments in life is not pointless. Our lives overall may mean nothing in the long term, but while we are alive we should make the most of our situations. Existentialism does not gloss over despair, having accepted a reality which may give rise to it, existentialism defies it. Nihilism gives in, and I find it rather more self-indulgent. I see nihilism as a sort of pointless wallowing in misery, a defeat. Existentialism at least offers the possibility of life for the sake of living, that life need not have a point or a purpose for an individual to enjoy it.

"Saipea - This message has been deleted by Saipea. Reason: Waste of breath."

Oh yeah. Did I mention that most of the existentialists I know are arrogant?

Is this statement accurate?

"The existentialists … mock the notion of a complete and fully satisfying life. The life of every man, whether he explicitly recognizes it or not, is marked by irreparable losses. Man cannot help aspiring toward the goods of this world, nor can he help aspiring toward the serene detachment from the things of this world which the traditional philosopher sought; but it is not within his power to achieve either of these ambitions, or having achieved them to find therein the satisfaction he had anticipated."
beats me. where'd you get it from? im not sure what it is getting at.

beats me. where'd you get it from? im not sure what it is getting at.
http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html

Viewing this "debate" as a philosophical "outsider," I find myself wondering why either a nihilist or an existentialist would consider debating the finer points of the two philosophies productive. I mean, why bother? Everything is ultimately pointless, right? :)
It may be ultimately, but that doesn't mean that it's any easier to ignore my emotions and thoughts now. Existentialism means I get to embrace the absurdity of accomplishing ultimately nothing -- it's life-affirming instead of the life-denying nature of nihilism.

I’d have to wonder how the book of Ecclesiastes isn’t about a guy that tried existentialism and found it lacking. That there was nothing meaningful under the Sun that you could choose to give yourself meaning, that whatever you choose to do and think is important, is not. So really, I’d have to say that the first anti-existentialism writing is about two and a half thousand years now and it still works :D

Is this statement accurate?

"The existentialists … mock the notion of a complete and fully satisfying life. The life of every man, whether he explicitly recognizes it or not, is marked by irreparable losses. Man cannot help aspiring toward the goods of this world, nor can he help aspiring toward the serene detachment from the things of this world which the traditional philosopher sought; but it is not within his power to achieve either of these ambitions, or having achieved them to find therein the satisfaction he had anticipated."
What that says to me is that while we may strive for perfection, we can never achieve it, and will always be disappointed. I suppose that interpretation makes sense. I would not necessarily associate the statement purely with existentialism though, without seeing the context. After all, a conventionally religious individual (life has a purpose, follows a plan) might equally say the same thing.

"Saipea - This message has been deleted by Saipea. Reason: Waste of breath."

Oh yeah. Did I mention that most of the existentialists I know are arrogant?

Probably because we know more than dogmatic vets who barge into discussions amongst intellectuals and start insulting people and their philosophies without knowing a damn clue about them, attempting to hide this by pulling quotes from the first site on google that can tell them the basics of a diverse and multiple philosophy (inaccurately, I might add), having made no attempt at understanding or immersing oneself in the mindset or philosophy, and continuing to hammer on an incorrect and false point!

That was basically what you missed Etrusca.
Are you happy that you struck a chord?
Maybe another ignorant rant about the ACLU will get some more excited responses for you to get off on.

http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html
*shrug*

you have a problem with the thought that there is no perfect life? that we will always have conflicting desires?

id have to think about it more before i could endorse the quote but there isnt anything there that strikes me as untrue. i dont know how often existentialists actually mock anything ...

It may be ultimately, but that doesn't mean that it's any easier to ignore my emotions and thoughts now. Existentialism means I get to embrace the absurdity of accomplishing ultimately nothing -- it's life-affirming instead of the life-denying nature of nihilism.
LOL! Ok. Ok. I can see I'm trying to describe an elephant here. Just let me leave each of you to your prefered brand of dispair with this observation: existentialism and nihilism start from the same place but arrive at different destinations. Nihilism is a bit more logical in its conclusions, but doesn't offer any hope. Existentialism shys away from the logical conclusion that everything is pointless, but at least offers the pale consolation prize that you get to define your own reasons for existing in a pointless universe.

I could never be either.

Existentialism means I get to embrace the absurdity of accomplishing ultimately nothing -- it's life-affirming instead of the life-denying nature of nihilism.
:)

*fluffles*

Thank you. Indeed, Albert Camus (who rejected nihilism and did not like to consider himself an existentialist) stressed absurdity as the distinguishing feature of human existence. Absurdism didn't really catch on though, and he is condemned to a place on lists of existentialist writers/philosophers. Ah well. His books totally rock.

LOL! Ok. Ok. I can see I'm trying to describe an elephant here. Just let me leave each of you to your prefered brand of dispair with this observation: existentialism and nihilism start from the same place but arrive at different destinations. Nihilism is a bit more logical in its conclusions, but doesn't offer any hope. Existentialism shys away from the logical conclusion that everything is pointless, but at least offers the pale consolation prize that you get to define your own reasons for existing in a pointless universe.

I could never be either.
so what ARE you?

Probably because we know more than dogmatic vets who barge into discussions amongst intellectuals and start insulting people and their philosophies without knowing a damn clue about them, attempting to hide this by pulling quotes from the first site on google that can tell them the basics of a diverse and multiple philosophy (inaccurately, I might add), having made no attempt at understanding or immersing oneself in the mindset or philosophy, and continuing to hammer on an incorrect and false point!

That was basically what you missed Etrusca.
Are you happy that you struck a chord?
Maybe another ignorant rant about the ACLU will get some more excited responses for you to get off on.
Ah. Now I see why the hostility. Rather than further aggravating you by trying to discuss a topic about which you obviously know so very much more than I do, I'll just leave you to whatever brand of misery makes you the least unhappy.

Existentialism shys away from the logical conclusion that everything is pointless

I've never understood this kind of argument against existentialism. If "everything" is pointless, then it doesn't really matter whether or not it's pointless. You might as well enjoy the pointlessness of it all. :D

And although I've only read L'Etranger, I do like Camus in general.

so what ARE you?
As Saipea so ably pointed out: an ignorant veteran who can't possibly comprehend anything other than hostility to everything Saipea holds dear.

Tactical Grace -
You misunderstood my point on "classical existentialism."
I'm saying, classical existentialism, in addition to acknowledging the transiense of life and the fact that noone remembers 99.99% of people in a century and the fact that each passing moment is precious (and all that sappy happy), lauds the great (ubermensch, if you will), and from a historical standpoint, the great achieve life through the rememberance of their works. I fully comprehend your standpoint, I was simply adding onto it.

Existentialism does not gloss over despair, having accepted a reality which may give rise to it, existentialism defies it. Nihilism gives in, and I find it rather more self-indulgent. I see nihilism as a sort of pointless wallowing in misery, a defeat. Existentialism at least offers the possibility of life for the sake of living, that life need not have a point or a purpose for an individual to enjoy it.

Nihilists who "wallow" kill themselves. Like existentialists, we have to keep moving. We just acknowledge the folly of enjoying the moment.

As I said, however, I'm usually in existentialist mode, it's inherent in my will to live as a sentient being.

Nevertheless, you can't deny the fact that while the individual moment can be enjoyed, the overall experience, which soon becomes memory, is inherently meaningless, as at the end of it all, it is nothing.

Unless we are all frames being traveled through by time, in which case, some 4th dimension holds my happiness, along with every other being.

And funnily enough, I just walked downstairs to find my brother and a few friends discussing L'Etranger, since it's a major part of their French final. *lol*

Saipea, personal insults are not a productive input to any debate. :)

Please respect the centuries of gloomy contemplation which went into this subject.

Going slightly off-topic, I've been in the Cafe de Floeur in Paris, where Camus worked on some of his ideas. They do a very nice cheese and ham omelette. It's a really busy tourist trap now though, so it has lost any connection with that past. I guess you have to imagine the ruins of the capital and empire.

:)

*fluffles*

Thank you. Indeed, Albert Camus (who rejected nihilism and did not like to consider himself an existentialist) stressed absurdity as the distinguishing feature of human existence. Absurdism didn't really catch on though, and he is condemned to a place on lists of existentialist writers/philosophers. Ah well. His books totally rock.

The Myth of Sisyphus helped me overcome my depression.

As Saipea so ably pointed out: an ignorant veteran who can't possibly comprehend anything other than hostility to everything Saipea holds dear.

Actually, your trite summary pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Sorry for the flame. My hair was on fire.

I don't know anything about philosophy, but I pretty much agree with the first post. I don't think life has any intrinsic meaning or purpose, it just is. And that's OK. I don't despair as a consequence of realising I don't matter to the universe, because there are things that matter to me. Life is meaningless, but that just makes it more fun. :D

I've never understood this kind of argument against existentialism. If "everything" is pointless, then it doesn't really matter whether or not it's pointless. You might as well enjoy the pointlessness of it all. :D

And although I've only read L'Etranger, I do like Camus in general.
I didnt' like L'Etranger so much, I loved Les Jeux Sont Faites by Jean Paul Sartre. We read them for the same class...

Tactical Grace -
You misunderstood my point on "classical existentialism."
I'm saying, classical existentialism, in addition to acknowledging the transiense of life and the fact that noone remembers 99.99% of people in a century and the fact that each passing moment is precious (and all that sappy happy), lauds the great (ubermensch, if you will), and from a historical standpoint, the great achieve life through the rememberance of their works. I fully comprehend your standpoint, I was simply adding onto it.
Ah, OK, I understand your view a bit better now. :)

We just acknowledge the folly of enjoying the moment...Nevertheless, you can't deny the fact that while the individual moment can be enjoyed, the overall experience, which soon becomes memory, is inherently meaningless, as at the end of it all, it is nothing.
I agree with the second part, but the folly of enjoying the moment? Ultimately, it does not matter whether you enjoyed the moment or not. But I do not believe it is a folly to enjoy it. Perhaps that is one area of divergence between the two philosophies.

As I said, I just oscillate between the "existential" and "nihilist" part, depending on my mood.

I didnt' like L'Etranger so much, I loved Les Jeux Sont Faites by Jean Paul Sartre. We read them for the same class...

I liked L'Etranger. For some reason that I've never actually looked into, it made me think of Catcher in the Rye, and I enjoy that book a great deal.

Haven't read any Sartre. Don't often find the time to sit down with a book outside of class-assigned reading these days, unfortunately.

My dad once gave me L'Etranger to read, during a difficult time in my life, saying it would help me understand myself better. I hate the name Outsider, it should really be Bystander, some say Stranger. And indeed I did identify with the main character. Easy for so many people to do, if you feel yourself to be an observer rather than an active participant in your life. And the peak of existentialism came in the post-war ruins of Europe.

Born of despair, yes, but paradoxically life-affirming.

I should also recommend the movie Taste of Cherry to thread participants:

http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/9/taste.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00000IBYU/103-0107478-8230255?v=glance

I liked L'Etranger. For some reason that I've never actually looked into, it made me think of Catcher in the Rye, and I enjoy that book a great deal.

Haven't read any Sartre. Don't often find the time to sit down with a book outside of class-assigned reading these days, unfortunately.
I enjoy Sartre.

There's an online copy of No Exit somewhere, it's a pretty short play, if you want to read it it shouldn't take more than half an hour to read and it's also great.

L'enfer c'est les autres

I enjoy Sartre.

There's an online copy of No Exit somewhere, it's a pretty short play, if you want to read it it shouldn't take more than half an hour to read and it's also great.

L'enfer c'est les autres

I'll see if I can find that then. Thanks.

*Goes through the thread handing out .357 revolvers, sharp stilettos, nooses, and unmarked pills to everyone but Eutrusca*

I definitely have existentialist leanings, and while I consider myself agnostic, I tend more towards the atheistic side. However, when I look at the results of the poll here, I can't help but question the statistical validity of the results. Certain errors are largely unavoidable in an informal context (i.e. nationstates users might not be representative of the population as a whole), but even within our community, by titling the thread "Are You an Existentialist?" you've created an additional bias. Largely that people who consider themselves existentialist are far more likely to view the thread in the first place and take the poll. So while we seem to have more than 3/4 of respondents at this point saying they at least lean towards existentialism, I'm not sure it actually means anything...

So while we seem to have more than 3/4 of respondents at this point saying they at least lean towards existentialism, I'm not sure it actually means anything...

Neither are they. :D

Oh, the poll is just a bit of fun. I know it is an unrepresentative sample. It does not matter what the thread title is, this is posted in NationStates General, a social forum so bizarre that any question you ask will result in a weird set of answers.

Neither are they. :D

Heeheheheheheh ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa ahahaa... :D

I am an Absurdist, which I guess makes me a sort of proto-existentialist. wo0Ot!

*Goes through the thread handing out .357 revolvers, sharp stilettos, nooses, and unmarked pills to everyone but Eutrusca*
oooooo thank you!

wonder if i can get enough money from this for a good lunch at the brew pub....


one must imagine ashmoria happy.

It seems we're mostly a bunch of existentialist nutjobs and that makes me happy. It's silly but this forum makes me feel like I'm not crazy. People actually agree with me here. And they know what big words like existentialism mean (lol).

I am an existentialist and a nihlist.

I suppose I am. I don't much care really about the universe, as it doesn't care about me, particularly. But that doesn't mean I'd rather have none than have one. Just because my life may be, in the end, useless to the universe does not mean it needs to be useless to humanity. Existentialism I believe is looking at things way out of perspective, realising that doing so is useless, and turning ourselves to what betters us, and our people. Making a difference to humanity is what matters, not the universe.

Judging from the definitions I've read and others opinions on this thread, I'd say I'm an existentialist, but also on my bad days a nihilist, which seems to be the same as many others. But I am confused and have a few questions...
Is an existentialist simply a nihilist who has 'got over it', as a few definitions seem to imply, is it not more complex? Or is there no difference, other than an existentialist simply looks away from the black hole of nihilism in front of them? Or do existentialists not believe there is this black hole? Is a life of existentialism therefore simply a struggle to stay focused on anything but this black hole, because if we look down then we're going to fall? Is existentialism therefore just denial, because as soon as you have really known despair then the rest of your life is simply a fight to not go there again? Is our knowledge of this universal pointlessness that we all eventually feel the true loss of innocence?
Because it seems that the train of thought this has just led me on has caused me to 'look down', as I sound quite like a Nihilist to myself right now, and that is not because I have suddenly become miserable, it is because I have started thinking about it.
Or am I not yet mature enough to have understood existentialism and the thick skin it seems to give you?

I would consider myself an existentialist. I believe in free will, the futility of rationally understanding existence, and things like that, though my existentialism is a bit more upbeat than existentialism as it is usually thought of.

For all those this is meaningless to, go to google and type 'define:[philosophy you want a definition of]' Then press enter

Is an existentialist simply a nihilist who has 'got over it', as a few definitions seem to imply, is it not more complex? Or is there no difference, other than an existentialist simply looks away from the black hole of nihilism in front of them? Or do existentialists not believe there is this black hole? Is a life of existentialism therefore simply a struggle to stay focused on anything but this black hole, because if we look down then we're going to fall? Is existentialism therefore just denial, because as soon as you have really known despair then the rest of your life is simply a fight to not go there again? Is our knowledge of this universal pointlessness that we all eventually feel the true loss of innocence?
Existentialists certainly believe in this "black hole" of meaninglessness, but it is a human trap, and falling into despair at the universe's indifference is in no way inevitable, or desirable. We have a choice, to step in or walk past. Existentialism does not ignore or deny nihilism, it actively rejects it. Where a nihilist resigns himself to a fall, an existentialist refuses to make that step.

Or am I not yet mature enough to have understood existentialism and the thick skin it seems to give you?
Hmm, well I don't know how old you are, but I would not say there is some age or accumulation of life experience that you must possess before you can look into ideas like this.

I lean that way.

But I'm neither atheist nor religious.

Yeah, I wanted to ask for a definition of religious before I picked that one. When I think of someone who is religious, I think of someone who belongs to an organized religion - which I do not. Does being spiritual count as being religious in this poll? I decided that it must, since the only other choice is "atheist". *shrug*

Yeah, I wanted to ask for a definition of religious before I picked that one. When I think of someone who is religious, I think of someone who belongs to an organized religion - which I do not. Does being spiritual count as being religious in this poll? I decided that it must, since the only other choice is "atheist". *shrug*
It's a good question. Spirituality is notoriously difficult to categorise because there is such a wide spectrum. Personally, I lump all of it with religion, though that is more out of personal convenience than intellectual rigor.

It's a good question. Spirituality is notoriously difficult to categorise because there is such a wide spectrum. Personally, I lump all of it with religion, though that is more out of personal convenience than intellectual rigor.

I could try and find some source showing that "spirituality" has been found tlo be a genetic trait, but noone ever believes or listens to me, so I won't bother.

However, I suppose spirituality is better categorized alongside religion in this discussion, though in a general sense, it would fall more under atheism, which rejects organized religion, but encompasses a wide array of beliefs. e.g. I would say Buddhism is a form of atheism.

I believe the universe is indifferent to human endeavour, has no intrinsic purpose, and offers no absolute morality.

That the individual is unique, and his existence, not the reasons for, but the consequences thereof, is the primary question.

I believe the existence of the individual precedes his essence, that a human being is only the sum of his experiences to date. Coming into being in an indifferent universe, he has the freedom to make his own decisions and the responsibility to accept the consequences, with no destiny to act as a guide or scapegoat.

Faced with this solitude, we deceive ourselves with false purpose, to mask the void opened up by our freedom to choose. Yet if the ultimate futility of our existence is recognised, I believe we can face our struggles with less anxiety. Our ultimate challenge is not a futile quest for meaning where there can be none, but to continue regardless, realising that every day we are redefined by the decisions we make and seeking to make the best choices we can, within the boundaries imposed by our context.
I agree with a lot of the above, but not all, and not the conclusion. I am not an existentialist.

I believe in mankind's capacity to assign meaning to the world around him, which imparts it with a metaphorical life, like the one that allows for it to feel "indifference" towards us. I believe I, as a human being, am more than the sum of my physical parts; that the aforementioned capacity for meaning and the faculty of imagination provide a non-physical (metaphysical) conceptual landscape of unlimited bounds where my spirit metaphorically resides.

I believe in god; not the God-image portrayed in the Bible, but a universal counterpart for man's consciousness with whom we build an individual relationship, which, again using that same capacity to assign meaning, is also imparted a life of its own, a life on the playground of the metaphysical plane. With this relationship with god, I feel no "solitude", nor do I feel any inherent futility to my existence. My life is fulfilled by constant and varied stimulii that redefines me each day, all of which has some meaning to me. I believe meaning is not something I seek but something I impart.

I believe that god is best described in the love that I feel, love for the other. I believe that love is a form of absolute morality in that all choices made for its betterment, the betterment of myself and the other, are inherently good ones.

I believe that destiny is a guide from the subconscious mind; that although we give it, too, a metaphorical life of its own, it requires my wilful participation to make it work. I believe in divination as a method of drawing information from the subconsciousness of my mind to consciousness, hence raising awareness.

Why does death make one's life "futile"?

Sapeia is a nihlist. Did you even read what you responded to... the whole bit about existentialists deluding themselves with purpose.

And really, no, we are insignificant on the cosmic scale, even if we find a way off this rock, we're not going to get out of this galaxy and thus won't really have much of an impact on the rest of the universe.
Why would you choose to measure yourself "on the cosmic scale" instead of from the perspective of your own mind, where you are of primary importance?

I could try and find some source showing that "spirituality" has been found tlo be a genetic trait, but noone ever believes or listens to me, so I won't bother.
I have been to a number of talks by biologists here in the UK, who are investigating growing evidence that there is a region of the brain responsible for the processing of religious meaning and its assignment, a region which can be verifiably stimulated, or damped, under laboratory conditions. Indeed, my father's unrelated work into the human mind's ability to manipulate abstract mathematical objects, and its limits, would seem to support this idea. (He is a mathematician interested amongst other things in various cognitive abilities and limits, apparently it has implications for virtual reality environments).

The ultimate application of this research may be to "kill" an enemy's god. At least, as perceived by them. Equally, the religious experience may be amplified to complete conviction. As exotic as it sounds, it would give a whole new meaning to the term "psychological warfare".

But this is early stage stuff for now. You are correct however, a spiritual region of the mind has been identified, and people are poking and prodding it. Local rotating magnetic fields are looking quite promising.

However, I suppose spirituality is better categorized alongside religion in this discussion, though in a general sense, it would fall more under atheism, which rejects organized religion, but encompasses a wide array of beliefs. e.g. I would say Buddhism is a form of atheism.
I tend to see atheism as complete certainty that there is nothing in the universe beyond the physical, rejecting the existence not only of an individual supreme entity, but also of all other metaphysical concepts. This is a very pure form of it. I cannot see how conventional atheism could possibly find room to accomodate eastern spirituality.

I have been to a number of talks by biologists here in the UK, who are investigating growing evidence that there is a region of the brain responsible for the processing of religious meaning and its assignment, a region which can be verifiably stimulated, or damped, under laboratory conditions. Indeed, my father's unrelated work into the human mind's ability to manipulate abstract mathematical objects, and its limits, would seem to support this idea. (He is a mathematician interested amongst other things in various cognitive abilities and limits, apparently it has implications for virtual reality environments).

The ultimate application of this research may be to "kill" an enemy's god. At least, as perceived by them. Equally, the religious experience may be amplified to complete conviction. As exotic as it sounds, it would give a whole new meaning to the term "psychological warfare".

But this is early stage stuff for now. You are correct however, a spiritual region of the mind has been identified, and people are poking and prodding it. Local rotating magnetic fields are looking quite promising.


I tend to see atheism as complete certainty that there is nothing in the universe beyond the physical, rejecting the existence not only of an individual supreme entity, but also of all other metaphysical concepts. This is a very pure form of it. I cannot see how conventional atheism could possibly find room to accomodate eastern spirituality.
Application??? A new vein of biological warfare, though the implications may be psychological.

*is terribly amused*

If by existentialist you mean, I assume, one who questions why we're here? That's an easy question. I had the answer figured out when I was about 12 or 13. I just remember reading about evolution one day and thinking, "Of Course! That's why we're here! We're here to make more humans!" If you look at everything we do (eat, sleep, breathe, drink, work etc...) sooner or later it all goes back to reproducing and propagating the human race. It's all really as simple as that. We're only here for the same reason any other animal is.

If by existentialist you mean, I assume, one who questions why we're here? That's an easy question. I had the answer figured out when I was about 12 or 13. I just remember reading about evolution one day and thinking, "Of Course! That's why we're here! We're here to make more humans!" If you look at everything we do (eat, sleep, breathe, drink, work etc...) sooner or later it all goes back to reproducing and propagating the human race. It's all really as simple as that. We're only here for the same reason any other animal is.
No, that's how we're here.

Between the how and why the two are...different? How we are here is the same as why we're here, for the same reason your parents, and their parents, and your parent's parent's parents were created all the way back to your so many-million greats grandparents the blue green algae. Nothing more elegant or decidely simple than the furthering of the human animal.

"If by existentialist you mean, I assume, one who questions why we're here? That's an easy question. I had the answer figured out when I was about 12 or 13. I just remember reading about evolution one day and thinking, "Of Course! That's why we're here! We're here to make more humans!" If you look at everything we do (eat, sleep, breathe, drink, work etc...) sooner or later it all goes back to reproducing and propagating the human race. It's all really as simple as that. We're only here for the same reason any other animal is. "

Which of course can be passed back, why does it matter if we have babies if their purpose is only to have babies? (ad infinitum), (even if the 'selfish gene' were truly selfish, why should we do what it wants) why should we care any more if our genes continue to propagate any more than our fame or reputation, we'll be dead so it will all be the same to us

Between the how and why the two are...different? How we are here is the same as why we're here, for the same reason your parents, and their parents, and your parent's parent's parents were created all the way back to your so many-million greats grandparents the blue green algae. Nothing more elegant or decidely simple than the furthering of the human animal.
So how you type in this forum is why you type in this forum? No, the two are not the same thing at all, in any application. I don't think the why has been suitably answered, though the best I've heard yet still has a degree of mysticism attached to it: We are here to experience life.

Which of course can be passed back, why does it matter if we have babies if their purpose is only to have babies? (ad infinitum), (even if the 'selfish gene' were truly selfish, why should we do what it wants) why should we care any more if our genes continue to propagate any more than our fame or reputation, we'll be dead so it will all be the same to us
That's the ticket: caring, especially about a result. 'Why we do things' is the motivation behind them. How we are here is beyond our control: we were born through a biological process. Why we are here can be interpreted two ways: as the reason for the how, which will invariably be religious/supernatural because of very nature of "why" (e.g. whose caring nature does the existence of this biological process serve?), or the motivation to remain. Simply put, not all humans are motivated by sex or family (in my limited experience, less than half the people I know are).

I just wanted to say that I didn't like that I was only given the choice of being atheistic or religious. I'm an agnostic, so neither choice really describes me. I put yes and atheist since it was closer, but I think there should have been an agnostic/non-theist option.

I just wanted to say that I didn't like that I was only given the choice of being atheistic or religious. I'm an agnostic, so neither choice really describes me. I put yes and atheist since it was closer, but I think there should have been an agnostic/non-theist option.
Yes, but the lag resulting from six poll choices... @.@

Regarding the how and why of our existence...'How' is a question for cosmology and evolution. 'Why' is not open to scientific inquiry, but the existentialist's response would probably be "There is no reason, but I will make one for myself".

Yes, but the lag resulting from six poll choices...
Agnostic here too, i feel sooooo left out. ;)
As for the reason why, i am an existentialist and my personal answer is: Dunno, but i enjoy the ride. I seriously dont give any thought about it and can very well get on with my life without a purpose.

As for the reason why, i am an existentialist and my personal answer is: Dunno, but i enjoy the ride. I seriously dont give any thought about it and can very well get on with my life without a purpose.
Is that what being an existentialist ultimately means? Having no purpose?

Is that what being an existentialist ultimately means? Having no purpose?

No. That's not what it means. And this thread isn't going down with that as the final word.

The bottom line is, existential nihilists et al know who they are, and pretty much everyone else doesn't. If they could comprehend it, they would probably be existential nihilists themselves. Or desconstructionists.